Moreover, it is not clearly to the skeptic's advantage to rely heavily on the Argument from Human Bias. For one thing, because human biases are not limited to the domain of the paranormal, the application of the argument extends beyond the boundaries of parapsychology. For example, we could use the argument to challenge every scientific lab study based on instrument readings and ordinary human observation. After all, scientists have at least as much at stake, and therefore at least as many reasons for perceptual biases, as do witnesses of psi phenomena. In fact, they may have more, given the intimate connection between their lab work and career interests. Furthermore (and even more important), the Argument from Human Bias cuts two ways, against reports by the credulous and the incredulous. If our biases may lead us to malobserve, misremember, or lie, then we should be as suspicious of testimony from nonbelievers as from believers. If (based on their favorable dispositions) we distrust reports by the apparently credulous or sympathetic that certain odd phenomena occurred, we should (by parity of reasoning) be equally wary of reports by the incredulous or unsympathetic that the alleged phenomena did not occur (or that cheating occurred instead). Although philosophers and scientists who fancy themselves to be tough-minded and impartial are often reluctant to concede this point, there have been exceptions. (The Limits Of Influence [Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 1997], 26-27)
He quotes C.J. Ducasse:
…allegations of detection of fraud, or of malobservation, or of misinterpretation of what was observed, or of hypnotically induced hallucinations, have to be scrutinized as closely and as critically as must the testimony for the reality of the phenomena. For there is likely to be just as much wishful thinking, prejudice, emotion, snap judgment, naiveté, and intellectual dishonesty on the side of orthodoxy, of skepticism, and of conservatism, as on the side of hunger for and of belief in the marvelous. The emotional motivation for irresponsible disbelief is, in fact, probably even stronger - especially in scientifically educated persons whose pride of knowledge is at stake - than is in other persons the motivation for irresponsible belief. (27)
Braude goes on:
Ducasse's caveat about irresponsible disbelief is buttressed by a wealth of evidence. For one thing, according to Stevenson (1968, p. 112), experiments have revealed some interesting ways in which peer pressure and other contextual factors can apparently influence a person's perceptions or perception reports. But even apart from the experimental evidence, the history of parapsychology chronicles an astounding degree of blindness, intellectual cowardice, and mendacity on the part of skeptics and ardent nonbelievers, some of them prominent scientists. (27)
Regarding the significance of bias in general, whether the bias of believers or unbelievers, see here.
At the beginning of the video below Mike Licona interviews Dale Allison and Allison testifies to a paranormal event he personally witnessed where an object disappeared from one part of a room and re-appeared in another part of the room. An apparent case of apportation.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/13_0oaCNQu4
Here's a cued up webinar where I asked Mike Licona to described the paranormal activities that occurred in his parents house when his father would speak out against Freemasonry.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/pUajktSCaeo?t=2h12m36s
It seems at least only fair to note that even if Allison is fully persuaded that the object disappeared and reappeared, that could be a mistaken inference on his part. Of course one would have to hear the whole story. While Allison's new book is not yet out, from what I have read in his old book and in the Phil Christi symposium some time ago, I would *strongly* urge against taking Allison's evaluation of *other* people's stories to be carefully considered or nuanced. Interestingly, he has a reverse double standard that apparently neither he nor anyone else expects and many are unable to see: When it comes to the Gospel stories, he swallows more or less hook, line, and sinker the majority of "critical scholars'" theories about them--to wit, that we have no good reason to think that they even represent what the original witnesses claimed at all. But he will retell ghost stories from long ago, the provenance of which is much less well-documented than that of the Gospels, and will simply state as unquestioned that this is what someone actually experienced.
ReplyDeleteMaybe no too surprising for a few reasons:
Deletei.) Unbelievers reject to Gospel - a tautology I know, but it's worth stating.
ii.) Ghost stories make no claims on him personally (morally, ethically, epistemologically).
iii.) Unbelievers inherently have an internally contradictory, incoherent, and irrational worldview by nature due to the Fall.
It's good to note these types of double standards, blind spots, and hypocrisy and press them home. The old "burr under the saddle", "stone in the shoe" analogies.
Nowadays we are "supposed" to refer to Dale Allison as a Christian. In this recent set of interviews Mike Licona calls him a "fellow believer" to his face and asks him to talk about his prayer and devotional practices. These are basically meditation practices combining yoga postures and the use of icons with thinking positive thoughts and in some sense directing these toward God. I do think Allison is a theist, but he is not an orthodox Christian, since he refuses to affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Licona is now pretty seriously suggesting that we redefine the notion of a Christian and "fellow believer" to include Allison's views. Considering that this status is generally taken to confer immunity from scholarly criticism, one can see where this is going. Though to be fair to Allison, I don't think he's asking for anything of the sort. He seems like a scrappy, tough sort of guy who doesn't much care what others think of him.
DeleteYes, ecumenism/syncretism is alive and well. I just noticed my typos, lol! Where is autocorrect when you need it?!?
Delete